That aside, there are no doubt legit rants about “the Jews”, blacks, legal immigrants, Muslims, illegals, etc. Half the time they mix it in with socialism or communism, etc. Always it’s a “they are killing this country” type of thing.

What ignorance when it comes to the universal hate on ethnicity. And as for commie and socialist? All of it is distractions from the core point:

I sort ’em all out by one factor: Do they believe in individual liberty? Or are they fundamentally authoritarian with the methods they choose? What do I care if they are Jewish or black? Besides, some of the biggest defenders of individual liberty I have ever met or read were Jewish, gay [Lessons of “Bridgegate”], etc.

On the other hand, if you believe you and your group of voters are more important than another persons’ individual liberty, and your chosen methods and policies demonstrate absolutely no respect, whatsoever, for others’ innate right to consent… And your resort to violence or threats thereof to achieve your goals? Well… Simply — you are an authoritarian of some form or another.

Let’s do a quick walk on authoritarian behavior vs. liberty. It is one word: Consent.

Difference between rape and making love = Consent or not.

Murder and suicide = consent or not.

Theft and charity = consent. Laundering it through an election does not make it right.

You get it?

That said, you racist types — Why not attack the behavior and define those individuals for what they truly are? But leave the rest of the Jews, blacks, and gays out of it. I’ve met plenty of good people, and some of the greatest liberty defenders you’ll find mixed in.

Now, some authoritarian folks don’t known any better and stoop to authoritarian policies without even understanding that’s what they’re voting for. They wouldn’t know individual liberty if it beat them over the head due to an government school education that serves like an indoctrination of the virtues of government interventionism and the required violations of individual liberty. You know who these people are — they are a ton of [fill in your ethnicity here]. Meanwhile, plenty of [fill in your ethnicity here] are authoritarians outright — commies, progressives… or right-wing anti liberty types.

That in mind, I’ll take a liberty-defending “illegal” any day over some sit-on-his-but “I’m entitled ’cause I’m ‘Merican Citizen” type who thinks he’s owed something from his hard working neighbors. Or some NeoConn – let’s use your tax dollars to remodel the world for “democracy” (not liberty, mind you….) type.

As for those darned Jews:

“It is curious that people tend to regard government as a quasi-divine, selfless, Santa Claus organization. Government was constructed neither for ability nor for the exercise of loving care; government was built for the use of force and for necessarily demagogic appeals for votes. If individuals do not know their own interests in many cases, they are free to turn to private experts for guidance. It is absurd to say that they will be served better by a coercive, demagogic apparatus.” — Murray Rothbard

The left has officially declared that if your against Obama and/or progressive methods, you are a racist. They have set about convincing everyone of this as a means of getting the fence sitters to ignore all criticism. All very Orwellian — thought planting kind of stuff.

Hence, there’s plenty of incentive for them to post extreme racism and hate on the comment sections of politician and news sites, and then reference that planted material in order to assassinate the entire message and messenger of the related criticisms. The old “guilt by association” tactic.

This is, of course, impossible to prove. But we do know that Saul Alinky’s Rules for Radicals is all about such deceit to achieve the essentially neo-Marxist / Fabian Socialist Utopia progressives wanted to enable.

And we do know progressives are all about calling other people racists…Look at the largely unfounded Tea Party accusations — Every progressive knows that racists attend Tea Party gatherings, although none has actually seen one. They’re quick to accuse their opponents of being haters of the poor, wanting elderly to starve and arranging things so kids have no healthcare options…. Etc.

It’s all designed to put your opponent on the defense and get them off track.

It is followed by another Alinksy rule: Ridicule. They’re “Tea Baggers”, Got it?

I just read an article over at Breitbart discussing David Horowitz’s recent comments at a Heritage Foundation function where he, in no uncertain terms, labeled the entire Democrat Party a bunch of “communists”.

“My parents called themselves progressives,” Horowitz explained with regard to his communist parents. “The agenda was a Soviet America…the slogan of the communist party in those days was peace, jobs, democracy. Sound familiar?”

He continued:

“The communist party is the Democratic Party.”

Having watched Horowitz come out of the closet as a conservative in the early 1990s, I found Horowitz’s positioning and timing interesting. The Heritage Foundation is influential among many conservatives who cling onto the GOP because they continue to believe that it somehow will throw them more than bones when it comes to liberty. And, here we find many democrats and independents joining republicans in questioning the whole idea of Obamacare, with many critics of Obama using the “communism” and “socialism” to describe what Obama and D’s really want / intend.

I also found it to be a GOP-centric attempt at focusing Republicans on a legitimate foe, while avoiding the real issue at hand when it comes to communism.

Lets be clear: You or I really would not care one ounce about communism if communists just went off and bought some property on their own someplace in order to create a voluntary communist enclave that is populated by those who voluntarily choose to join and remain part of such a commune, while leaving the rest of us alone.

The problem is, most all communists want to foist their ideology on the rest of us without giving us a choice in the matter. THAT is the problem with communism, but for the few on the fringe who simply joined communes and were done with it: It is inherently authoritarian. (Authoritarian meaning “The State has the Authority to Do as It Pleases regardless of individual liberty / consent”, keeping in mind that democracy can be fully authoritarian at the expense of minorities.)

That said, I don’t care about communism per say, but I do care about the means people choose to implement it.

That in mind, we need to run ALL politicians through the lens of individual LIBERTY. There we quickly discover that Communism itself is not a danger, but rather AUTHORITARIAN communism (albeit a redundant phrase in practice, since 99.5% of communists wish to force their fellow humans into their ideology, even if it means nearly 100 million deaths, as we have previously witnessed in the 20th century).

In other words, we would have rooted-out / exposed Obama’s true problem — he’s an authoritarian at heart – and not gotten gummed up in the debate over if he’s a communist (socialist, etc) or not, a debate many still find themselves sucked into today.

That said, when we use the Lens of INDIVIDUAL LIBERTY, we can most assuredly discover that all progressives and most all democrats a quasi-authoritarian to full-blown authoritarian types, believing that, while some liberty should be protected, Government should ultimately decide and may, when convenient, void whatever liberties it so chooses — ala, once again, Obamacare. (Notice now how the whole “is Obamacare Socialist or not” debate similarly distracts from the real point: We’re all chained to it!)

However, we also discover the hypocrisy of many of those who shout loudly about the bogeyman of communism. While they have fingered a dangerous foe, they often promote a different, authoritarian-method-enforced philosophy or set of priorities which is similarly dismissive or dangerous to Individual liberty. In this we find most all progressives and a ton of liberty-lip-service GOPers.

What we will find, if we are honest and not hypocritical, is that most elections argue over various shades of authoritarian behaviors laundered through the ballot box,

With all the JFK hubbub in the wake of the 50th anniversary of his assassination, I keep seeing, hearing, etc. the famous soundbite from his Inaugural Address:

…And so, my fellow Americans: ask not what your country can do for you — ask what you can do for your country.

I’d feel a lot better about that JFK speech if he’d not hung out in the gray area of what the Democrats now clearly promote at their Conventions: “We all belong to our Government”.

In other words, I’d have preferred something more along the lines “ask not what your government can do for you. Ask what you can do for your fellow man and the economy so there’s no excuse for politicians to try to make every little thing the job of the government.” Not a great soundbite, and I’m in too much of a hurry to edit, but I think the point is there: The JFK soundbite has been used to make noble the idea that we should give up our liberty and wealth, rights, etc. for the “good of the country”, which implies, by Government Means and authority. e.g. — give up your liberty.

The speech mentions the “L” word only once:

Let every nation know, whether it wishes us well or ill, that we shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe, in order to assure the survival and the success of liberty.

Indeed. Including engaging Vietnam, in which his VP cum President forced young men into a war in Vietnam regardless of their views on the subject, liberty, etc. “… do for your country” or else, is what it came to, and is what we’re always presented with election after election.

I think the main lesson is that you cannot discount the effect of money in elections. The Chamber of Commerce support behind the establishment candidate helped. This goes to prove that Citizens United decision of the SC will have repercussions (irrespective of whether you agree with it or not). All who care about this great democracy need to understand the fact that money in electoral politics is a distorting factor. Unlimited spending by unknown groups simply is not healthy.

Let’s not blame the money. It’s what’s for sale that will always be the problem. So long as each election is an advance auction sale of loot in the forms of confiscated wealth via taxes and confiscated liberty via regulations, to the benefit of special interests, the power elite and special interests will run the show at everyone else’s expense.

“You can always elect to move a country with no taxes and no regulations. Example: Somalia! “

This is a tired strawman of the progressives and other big govt types (GOP, etc.) –“If you don’t let us bend you over with our countless ways of pushing you around, you must want Somalian chaos, because that’s the only other option to our know-it-all progressive ways.”

I call B.S.

Somalia’s situation is all about mini-authoritarian tyrants and killers banding together and violating the freedom and liberty of others.

Liberty is about consent and voluntary association. Government is nothing more than a claim of some to a monopoly on force and the violence necessary to enforce laws to achieve specific ends. Your Somalian war-lords define themselves as “governors” of their territory and claim authority to violate liberty to achieve their goals.

“Check it out. Absolute FREEDOM and LIBERTY. “

ME: Freedom to violate liberty for those with a monopoly on power, more like it. Using your logic, pre Wilson, FDR, LBJ and the modern regulatory state we had Somalia in the U.S. (I hope you’re not a teacher.)

I’ve run into a lengthy conversation with some folks who claim, outright, that Assagne is a rapist. Yet, this appears to be the story of two women, Anna Ardin and Sofia Wilen, collaborating after discovering that Assange had been sleeping with both of them over a number of days. Yet the Western Media largely promotes this as a case of clear cut Rape, while their Governments certainly don’t mind that the founder of Wikileaks is getting a dose of prosecution, and may even be pressuring the charges along to fulfillment. Meanwhile, the Swedish prosecutors, while perhaps assisting those who would like Assange jailed for the mere act of exposing secrets, seems also to be happy to tread deeply into highly dubious, extremist-feminist theory about rape and consent. All and all, an intriguing tale!

But before I go any further, I must be clear: rape is rape. There is no in-between. The difference between rape and sex is the word “consent”.

The Two

Many out there refuse to publish the names of the two women involved in the Assange case, lumping it in as a simple case of hiding the identity of rape victims. But that’s in total denial of the reality of this case. Neither woman claimed rape originally, and many of the details of this case would be lost by hiding the identities of who these woman are — and if they were even initially seeking prosecution, or if the prosecution was the outgrowth of another agenda.

Anna Ardin is a leftist, feminist and animal rights activist in Sweden, and the Press Secretary of “The Brotherhood Movement”, a fringe, left-wing Christian faction of Sweden’s Social Democratic party. She is a former Swedish embassy official who served in Buenos Aires, and Havana: she was reportedly asked to leave Cuba after her interactions with Cuban exile groups linked to the CIA (although suggestions that she is a CIA operative are dubious at best, as her associations appear purely incidental). Ardin also interned for the editorial page of GT, the Gothenburg edition of Expressen (relevant later). She also previously worked at the Uppsala University, handling equality issues for the students’ union as the “gender equity” officer. She is the author of “Seven Steps to Legal Revenge”, which details how to maximize revenge / inflict pain on enemies by getting people to stalk them and by using other nefarious tricks.

Sophia Wilen was self described Assange fan and an aspiring photographer. An employee of the local Social Democratic-controlled council in the northern town of Enkoping, Wilen later told police that she had seen Assange on television and had become “obsessed” by him.

The Story

The story begins with Ardin having invited Assange to Stockholm, Sweeden to speak at a Brotherhood Movement event. Assang accepted Ardin’s offer to stay at her home, which she said would be unoccupied because she would be with her family for a few days. Assange arrived on 8/11/2010, but Ardin returned early on 8/13, and they cohabitated on a temporary basis while Assang was in town for the event. On the evening of 8/13 they had sex, both admitting that a condom was used but had broken.

At 8:00 a.m. on Thursday, August 29, 2013, in what has been called a “brutal and vicious act,” a team of 20 social workers, police officers, and special agents stormed a homeschooling family’s residence near Darmstadt, Germany, forcibly removing all four of the family’s children (ages 7-14). The sole grounds for removal were that the parents, Dirk and Petra Wunderlich, continued to homeschool their children in defiance of a German ban on home education.

Those who gravitate to government tend to have very little respect for the concept of consent. Essentially, those in government are some shade of “authoritarian”. They believe their personal belief system on specific solutions to specific problems are the best, and they refuse to allow for others to say “no thanks”. The Wunderlich family is victimized by this authoritarian mentality, while the rest of the German nation indifferently lets their family be broken up by a radicalized state.

It’s a shame that in the United States there is a growing movement of those in the Education Industrial Complex, from unions to textbook printers, who want to apply a similar squeeze on U.S. homeschooling. A tactic being pressed in California: one must have union-approved teaching credentials to home-school children. Not surprisingly, the California appeals court — a part of the Government Apparatus noted already above — believes individual consent and basic liberty is subservient to “the law”:

For those of you able to see the live cam, we can see that Democracy for some is tyranny for others. What many younger and Western educated Egyptians wanted was change when it came to Mubarak. What they didn’t want was an Islamic tyranny. And so we see a coup knocks out Morsi, and after the Morsi regime backed away from protecting minorities like the Coptic Christians, who have been persecuted heavily since Mubarak was overthrown… well, let’s hope the fragile bits of liberty remaining in Egypt are able to grow roots and gains some strength.

As for the U.S. meddling that brought Morsi into power, these photos and these other photos all tell a tale of how dysfunctional U.S. foreign policy has grown. Moreover, it illustrates once again how picking one side makes you the enemy of the other.

Frankly, when it comes to the Middle East, between radical Shiites and Sunnis, may there bad luck for each blow that misses. Hopefully they destroy each-other, wannabe radicals learn their lesson that “Radical Mohammad” results in lots of dead Muslims, and the moderates can build from what’s left.

“Our contemporaries are constantly wracked by two warring passions: they feel the need to be led and the desire to remain free. Unable to destroy either of these contrary instincts, they seek to satisfy both at once. They imagine a single, omnipotent, tutelary power, but one that is elected by the citizens. They combine centralization with popular sovereignty. This gives them some respite. They console themselves for being treated as wards by imagining that they have chosen their own protectors. Each individual allows himself to be clapped in chains because that the other end of the chain is held not by a man or a class but by the people themselves.”

While I oppose most gun control proposals, there is one group of Americans I do believe should be disarmed: federal agents. The use of force by federal agents to enforce unjust and unconstitutional laws is one of the major, albeit overlooked, threats to liberty. Too often Americans are victimized by government force simply for engaging in commercial transactions disproved of by Congress and the federal bureaucracy.

For example, the offices of Rawesome Foods in Venice, California, have been repeatedly raided by armed federal and state agents, and Rawesome’s founder, 65-year old James Stewart, has been imprisoned. What heinous crime justified this action? Rawesome sold unpasteurized (raw) milk and cheese to willing customers – in a state where raw milk is legal! You cannot even drink milk from a cow without a federal permit!